Team Research: MSU Team Lab
An Experimental Approach to Structural Issues in
Command and Control
 Perspective

–
Situation X Person Interaction
»
–
–
Situation includes both task structure and task demands
Contingency Models
Mapping the Structural and Personal Space
Horizontal space (Divisional and Functional)
» Vertical space (Roles and Power/Status)
»
–
–
Research: Past and Ongoing
Research: Future Directions
1
Research on Adaptation

Review and discuss 4 studies focused on adaptation in teambased work environments
Study
Form of Adaptation
structure adaptation as a means of
adapting to communication losses during
the course of performing a task
Publication Status
Team Adaptation & Postchange Performance:
Effects of Team Composition in Terms of
Members’ Cognitive Ability and Personality
 Role

Published in Journal of Applied Psychology,
2003, 88, 1, 27-39
Backing Up Behaviors in Teams: The Role of
Personality and Legitimacy of Need
 Backing

Published in Journal of Applied Psychology,
2003, 88, 3, 391-403
Team Learning: Collectively Connecting the
Dots
 Team
 Published
Adapting to Unexpected Changes in Team Size:
The Role of Individual Differences & Team
Processes
 Adapting
up behaviors as a form of
adapting to new adversary tactics
learning as a means of adapting to
new adversary technology
team size
to unexpected reductions in
in Journal of Applied Psychology,
2003, 88, 5, 821-835
 Data
collected in Spring 2004; manuscript to
be completed Fall 2004
2
Adapting to Communication Losses
(Lepine, 2003)

Purpose: Examine the factors that allow teams to
effectively adapt their routines in response to unforeseen
changes in the work environment

Primary contribution:
–
Extension of individual-level, cognition-focused adaptation
research to consider team-level behavior
3
Adapting to Communication Losses
Theory & Conceptual Model


Teams must be able to deal with unanticipated change and modify their routines
(Argote & McGrath, 1993)
Key questions:
–
–
What variables predict the extent to which teams adjust their routines in response to
unforeseen change?
Do the same factors predict team performance prior to and after unforeseen change?
Member Cognitive Ability
Member Achievement
Role Structure Adaptation
Member Dependability
Post Change
Decision-Making
Performance
Member Openness to Exp.
4
Adapting to Communication Losses
Hypotheses
Member Cognitive Ability
Member Achievement
Hypothesis 2a, 3a, 4a, & 5a
+
+
Hypothesis 1
Role Structure Adaptation
Member Dependability
Member Openness to Exp.

−
–
Post Change
Decision-Making
Performance
+
Hypotheses 2b, 3b, 4b, & 5b:
–
+
Member cognitive ability, achievement, and
openness to experience positively related to
team decision-making performance after
change
Member dependability negatively related to
team decision-making performance after
change

Hypotheses 2c, 3c, 4c, & 5c:
–
Role structure adaptation mediates
relationship between member cognitive
ability, achievement, dependability and
openness to experience and team decisionmaking performance after change
5
Adapting to Communication Losses
Research Design & Methods





TIDE2 decision-making simulation
73 three-person teams (college juniors and seniors)
Random assignment to teams and roles
Training and practice designed to facilitate development of
team routines
Role structure adaptation measured using (a) count method
and (b) rated measure
6
Adapting to Communication Losses
Findings & Implications

All hypotheses received empirical support

Suggests that the set of individual differences that predict
team performance in a changing situation may be quite
distinct from those that predict performance in more
routine situations

Implication: Effective team staffing should consider the
degree to which the team is likely to experience
unexpected change
7
Adapting to New Adversary Tactics
(Porter et al., 2003)

Purpose: Examine the effects of team member personality
and legitimacy of need on backing up behaviors in teams

Primary contribution:
–
–
–
Differentiates help in terms of its legitimacy of need
Examines backing up behavior at the team-level
Provides an objective measure of whether help actually ensued
8
Adapting to New Adversary Tactics
Conceptual Model & Hypotheses
Input

Personality of back up recipient

Personality of back up provider

Legitimacy of need (direct &
moderator effect)

Legitimacy of need positively relates to backing
up (H1)

Recipient conscientiousness and legitimacy of
need interact to predict backing up (H2)

Recipient emotional stability and legitimacy of
need interact to predict backing up (H3)

Recipient extraversion and legitimacy of need
interact to predict backing up (H4)

Provider conscientiousness and legitimacy of
need interact to predict backing up (H5)

Provider emotional stability and legitimacy of
need interact to predict backing up (H6)

Provider agreeableness and legitimacy of need
interact to predict backing up (H7)
Team Process

Backing up behavior
(# of help attacks)
Backing Up Behavior: Discretionary provision of resources and task-related effort to another member of
one’s team that is intended to help that team member obtain the goals defined by his or her role when it is
apparent that the team member is failing to reach those goals
9
Adapting to New Adversary Tactics
Research Design & Methods





DDD decision-making simulation
71 four-person teams (college juniors and seniors)
Individuals randomly assigned to teams / roles
Teams randomly assigned to high or low-legitimacy
condition (based on resource allocation and workload
distribution)
Hierarchical regression used to test moderation effects
10
Adapting to New Adversary Tactics
Findings & Implications


Hypotheses 1, 2, 4, and 6 (no support for H3, H5 or H7)
–
Legitimacy of need predicts backing up behavior
–
Legitimacy of need interacts with back up provider and recipient personality to
predict backing up behavior
Implication:
–
Personality of the back up provider and recipient can differentially affect the
effectiveness of backing up behavior in teams
»
–
E.g., showing good discrimination on when to provide back up
Effective team staffing should consider the degree to which team members will
experience workload distribution imbalance – and compose the team accordingly
»
E.g., conscientious and extraverted recipients
»
E.g., emotionally stable providers
11
Adapting to New Adversary Technology
(Ellis et al., 2003)

Purpose: Examine how project teams learn and how the speed of the
learning process can be improved within teams of individuals with no
prior history or knowledge of each other’s strengths and weaknesses

Primary contribution:
–
Expands traditional conceptualization of learning process at the individual
level to the team level
»
Recognizes that team members learn from their own direct experience AND the
experience of other team members
12
Adapting to New Adversary Technology
Theory & Conceptual Model

Input

Member cognitive ability

Workload distribution
(even/uneven)
Team Process

–
Team learning



Member agreeableness and
openness to experience
Team structure
–
–
–
Pair-based
Functional
Divisional
Team Learning
Relatively permanent change in the
team’s collective level of knowledge and
skill produced by the shared experience
of the team members
Accounts for multiple sources of learning
in teams
–
Individual team member’s ability to
individually acquire knowledge and skill
–
Team members’ ability to collectively
share information
13
Adapting to New Adversary Technology
Hypotheses
Input

Member cognitive ability

Workload distribution
(even/uneven)

Member agreeableness and
openness to experience

Team structure
–
–
–
Pair-based
Functional
Divisional

Higher levels of general cognitive ability
generates higher levels of team learning
(H1)

Evenly distributed workloads will
engender greater team learning than
unevenly distributed workload (H2)

Higher levels of agreeableness will
generate lower levels of team learning
(H3)

Higher levels of openness to experience
will generate higher levels of team
learning (H4)

Project teams using pair-based structures
will learn more than those structured
functionally or divisionally (H5)
Team Process

Team learning
14
Adapting to New Adversary Technology
Research Design & Methods

DDD decision-making simulation

109 four-person teams (college juniors and seniors)

Individuals randomly assigned to teams / roles

Teams randomly assigned to paired, functional and divisional structures

Workload distribution manipulated within teams across 2 different 30-minute
simulations

Team learning based on the nature of engagement toward a series of Unknown
targets
–

Effective engagement / efficient engagement
Repeated measures regression used to analyze data
15
Adapting to New Adversary Technology
Findings & Implications

Findings support H1, H2, H3, and H5

Cognitive ability, agreeableness, workload distribution and team structure
impact project team learning

Implication:
–
For project teams operating in contexts that demand learning, effective team
staffing should select individuals with high cognitive ability – and not all
members should be high in agreeableness
–
Ensuring even workload distribution and employing team structures where two
members have access to the same information helps to eliminate learning barriers
16
Adapting to Reductions in Size
(DeRue et al., 2005)

Purpose: Examine the factors that allow teams to
effectively adapt in response to unforeseen reductions in
team size

Primary contribution:
–
–
Examines the compositional factors and processes that enable
teams to effectively adapt to reductions in team size
Explores multiple forms of reductions in team size
17
Adapting to Reductions in Size
Theory & Conceptual Model
Input




Team structure
Task environment
Individual differences
Form of reduction in
team size
 Examined
Mediators





Post-Change Team
Performance
Trusting
Structuring
Bonding
Adapting
Learning
3 forms of reducing team size:
–
Eliminate hierarchy (eliminate the team leader role)
–
Integrate hierarchy (leader replaces displaced team member in action role)
–
Maintain hierarchy (leader position remains; displaced team member not replaced)
18
Adapting to Reductions in Size
Research Design & Methods

DDD decision-making simulation

~75 five-person teams (college juniors and seniors)

Individuals randomly assigned to teams / roles

Teams randomly assigned to conditions

Data analysis in process
19
Adapting to Reductions in Size
Preliminary Findings
Offense Scores (Game 2 Mean)
Defense Scores (Game 2 Mean)
1250
40500
1240
40000
1230
39500
1220
39000
1210
38500
1200
38000
1190
37500
1180
37000
1170
36500
Control

Eliminate
Leader
Integrate
Leader
Maintain
Hierarchy
Control
Eliminate
Leader
Integrate
Leader
Maintain
Hierarchy
Form of reduction significantly affects team performance
–
–
E.g., Leader may not be an adequate substitute for task performing roles
E.g., Losing the team leader has little impact on offensive performance but significantly detracts from
team’s ability to monitor the team environment
20
Adapting to Reductions in Size
Preliminary Findings (cont.)
Structuring (Game 2 Mean)
Bonding (Game 2 Mean)
4
4
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
Control


Eliminate
Leader
Integrate
Leader
Maintain
Hierarchy
Control
Eliminate
Leader
Integrate
Leader
Maintain
Hierarchy
Losing a task performing team member engenders more structuring of roles and
responsibilities in the team
Loss of team leader significantly hinders team bonding (potentially more taskfocused)
21
Adapting to Reductions in Size
Emerging Implications


Shifting traditional, hierarchical teams to self-managing teams
with no formal leader does not always result in superior team
performance
–
Potential short-term bonding loss
–
Loss of external monitoring function
If forced to downsize, which team members should stay / go?
–
Key considerations: Task environment? Short-term or long-term
perspective?
22
Structural Asymmetry Research

Review and discuss 4 studies focused on structure in team-based
work environments
Study
Form of Structure
resource allocation structures
interact with the type of environment to
determine team performance
Publication Status
Structural Contingency Theory and Individual
Differences: Examination of External and
Internal Person-Team Fit
 Horizontal

Published in Journal of Applied Psychology,
2002, 87, 3, 599-606
Asymmetric Adaptability: Dynamic Team
Structures as One-Way Streets
 Horizontal

In press at the Academy of Management
Journal
The Asymmetric Nature of Structural
Adaptation: The Impact of Centralizing and
Decentralizing on Group Outcomes
 Vertical
 Manuscript
The Impact of Hybrid Team Structures on
Performance and Adaptation: Beyond
Mechanistic and Organic Prototypes
 Hybrid
 Data
resource allocation structural
changes may not be as easy to make in
one direction as they are in the other
decision-making authority
structural changes may not be as easy to
make in one direction as they are in the
other
horizontal and vertical structures
outperform redundant ones
under revision, to be submitted to
the Journal of Applied Psychology
collected in Spring 2003; manuscript to
be completed Fall 2004
23
Purpose

Examine the impact of team structure on team
performance and effectiveness by addressing:
–
–
–
the fit of structural conditions to task demands
structural adaptability to changes in task demands
the internal fit of team members to team structures
24
Dimensions of Structure
25
Fixed Structures
(Hollenbeck et al., 2002)

Structural Contingency Theory
–

Fit of Team Structure to Environment (External Fit)
–

No one best way to structure teams in organizations
Team performance will be an interactive effect of the team structure
and its task/problem environment
Types of structure
–
Divisional: People are grouped based on geographic region
»
»
–
Broad Roles
Highly independent
Functional: People are grouped on the basis of the type of the work
they perform
»
»
Narrow/specialized roles
High levels of interdependence
26
Fixed Structures
(Hollenbeck et al., 2002)

Fit of individuals’ characteristics to the demands placed on
team members by different structures
–
In divisional structures, jobs are complex and have fairly high levels
of autonomy
»
–
In functional structures, roles are fragmented and there are high levels
of interdependence, making coordination very important
»
–
High cognitive ability may be better here
Agreeable team members may be important
In misaligned structures/environments, high levels of stress or
conflict may occur
»
Emotional stability is important in dealing with this
27
Fixed Structures
Hypotheses

External Fit:
–

Internal Fit:
–
–

H1: Functional structures will be superior in predictable
environments while divisional structures will be superior in
random environments
H2: There will be a positive relationship between cognitive ability
and individual performance in divisional structures
H3: There will be a positive relationship between agreeableness
and individual performance in functional structures
Joint Fit:
–
H4: In teams with misaligned structures/environments, there will
be a positive relationship between emotional stability and
individual performance
28
Fixed Structures
Methods
Design: 2 (structure) X 2 (task demand) between
subjects
 Sample: 80 4-person teams
 Task: DDD(MSU)
 Measures:

–
–
–
Cognitive Ability (Wonderlic)
Agreeableness & Emot. Stability (NEO-PI-R)
Performance (team & Individual, DDD output)
29
Fixed Structures
Results: External Fit
30
Fixed Structures
Results: Internal and Joint Fit

H2: In aligned divisional structures, cognitive ability was
positively related to individual performance (ΔR2 = .04, p
< .05)

H3: In aligned functional structures, Individual
performance was not related to agreeableness

H4: In misaligned divisional structures, emotional stability
was positively related to individual performance (ΔR2 = .03,
p < .05)
– This relationship was not significant for misaligned
functional structures
31
Structural Asymmetry
(Moon et al., in press)
 Comparison
–
–
of 2 types of structural shift
Functional  Divisional
Divisional  Functional
 Stimulated
by: Need to change; tendency to apply
static findings to dynamic situations
 Asymmetric Adaptability:
structural changes may not
be as easy to make in one direction as they are in the
other
–
May be easier to switch from a divisional structure to a
functional structure, or vice versa
32
Structural Asymmetry
Theory

Structural shifts may be more or less difficult depending on
the types of norms teams develop
–

In functional structures, norms are built for cooperation and
communication
–

Initial norms may carry over to impact future performance
These norms are not likely to hamper performance when a team
switches to a divisional structure
In divisional structures, norms are built for independence
–
These norms will be detrimental to team performance when a team
switches to a functional structure
33
Structural Asymmetry
Hypotheses

H1: Functional structures will be superior in predictable environments while
divisional structures will be superior in random environments [Replication of
Hollenbeck et al. (2002)]

H2: Teams switching from Div. to Fun. structures will perform worse upon
switching than teams switching from Fun. to Div. structures

H3: Communication and coordination behaviors mediate the difference in
performance between teams engaged in Div. to Fun. and Fun. to Div.
structural adaptation

H4: The positive effects of Fun. to Div. structural adaptation will be stronger
for teams that are high in general cognitive ability
34
Structural Asymmetry
Methods

Design: 2 (structure) x 2 (task demand) x 2 (time)

Sample: 63 4-person teams

Task: DDD (MSU)

Measures:
–
–
Cognitive Ability (Wonderlic)
Team Performance (DDD output)
35
Structural Asymmetry
Results

H1: At time 1, functional structures were superior in predictable
environments while divisional structures were superior in random
environments (ΔR2 = .08, p < .05)

H2: At time 2, teams that switched from Fun. to Div. structures
outperformed teams who switched from Div. to Fun. Structures (ΔR2 =
.06, p < .05)

H3: Coordination behaviors mediated the relationship between
structure and performance such that main effect of structural change
on performance at time 2 was no longer significant when
communication and coordination behaviors were controlled for
36
Structural Asymmetry
Results
39000
38000
Performance
37000
36000
High G
Stage 2 ave
Low G
35000
34000
33000
32000
31000
30000
D-F structure
F-D structure
Type of change
37
Dimensions of Structure
38
Centralization Structures
(Ellis et al., 2004)

Built on notion of asymmetric adaptability by
examining centralization as structure
–

Centralized: A designated leader has a degree of authority
and control
–
–

Vertical/role structure mode (centralization) rather than
horizontal/task mode (departmentation)
Ensure coordination
Better in task conditions that require error control
Decentralized: Team members have authority to make
individual decisions
–
–
–
Ease of learning/adapting
More innovative
Better in environments that demand speed or learning
39
Centralization Structures
Theory
 Norms
developed initially may impact future
performance
 In centralized structures, norms are built for
coordination
–
These should lead to higher accuracy, which may carry over
when teams switch structures
 In
decentralized structures, norms are built for
independence and personal discretion
–
These should lead to higher speed, but may be harmful
when the team switches structures and they are removed
40
Centralization Structures
Hypotheses

H1a: At time 1, teams with a centralized structure will be more
accurate than teams with a decentralized structure

H1b: At time 1, teams with a decentralized structure will be
faster than teams with a centralized structure

H2: Teams switching from Cen to Decen structures will be more
successful at time 2 than teams switching from Decen to Cen
structures
–
i.e. retain accuracy and gain speed vs. lose speed but do not gain
accuracy
41
Centralization Structures
Methods

Design: 2 (structure) x 2 (time) between

Sample: 93 4-person teams

Task: DDD (MSU) with mixed task environment
(environment held constant)

Measures:
–
Performance (DDD output)
» Speed
» Accuracy
42
Centralization Structures
Results

H1a: Centralized teams were more accurate than
decentralized teams at time 1 (ΔR2 = . 30, p < .05)

H1b: Decentralized teams were faster than
centralized teams at time 1 (ΔR2 = .11, p < .05)

H2: Teams switching from Cen to Decen gained
accuracy, but did not lose speed. Teams switching
from Decen to Cen did not gain accuracy, but lost
speed
43
Mechanistic vs. Organic Structures
(Jundt et al., 2004)
 Redundant
–
–
Horizontal and vertical structure are parallel
Costs and benefits of both types of structures are similar
 Complimentary
–
–
(hybrid)
Horizontal and vertical structures compliment each other
Can reap the benefits associated with both types of
structures simultaneously
44
Mechanistic vs. Organic Structures
Theory
Fun Cen
Fun Decen
Div Cen
Div
Decen
45
Mechanistic vs. Organic Structures
Theory

Teams having members with certain characteristics
may be better able to make the necessary
adjustments needed when changing structures.
–
May be especially true for the difficult O  M shift
 Emotional
stability - Better able to deal with stress
and anxiety
 Extraversion – More assertive and talkative
46
Mechanistic vs. Organic Structures
Hypotheses





H1: Teams switching from MO structures will
outperform teams switching from OM structures at time 2
H2a: Hybrid teams will outperform mechanistic teams at
time 1
H2b: Hybrid teams will adapt to structural change better
than OM teams at time 2
H3: Teams with high mean levels of emotional stability will
be able to more successfully make the organic to
mechanistic (O  M) structural shift
H4: Teams with high mean levels of extraversion will be
able to more successfully make the (O  M) structural shift
47
Mechanistic vs. Organic Structures
Research Design


2 (Departmentation) x 2 (Centralization) between at time 1
Within team shift on both dimensions of structure at time 2
48
Mechanistic vs. Organic Structures
Method

Sample: 64 4-person teams
 Task:

MSU-DDD with mixed task environment
Measures:
–
–
Team performance (DDD output)
Emotional Stability & Extraversion: NEO-PI-R (Costa &
McCrae, 1992)
49
Mechanistic vs. Organic Structures
Results

H1: M  O teams outperformed O  M teams at
time 2, controlling for time 1 performance (b =
2.55, p < .01)

H2a: Hybrid teams outperformed mechanistic
teams at time 1, (t [47] = 3.01, p <.01)

H2b: Controlling for time 1 performance, hybrid
teams outperformed O  M teams at time 2 (b =
1.93, p < .01)
50
Mechanistic vs. Organic Structures
Results

H3: teams making the difficult OM shift were
more successful when team members were high on
emotional stability (ΔR2 = .05, p < .05)

H4: teams making the difficult OM shift were
more successful when team members were highly
extroverted (ΔR2 = .07, p < .05)
51
Mechanistic vs. Organic Structures
Conclusions

Structural contingencies on both horizontal and vertical
dimensions impact team performance

Asymmetry effects found on horizontal dimension also
observed on vertical dimension

Optimal team structures may involve both vertical and
horizontal structural characteristics
–

Hybrid structures may allow teams to perform well initially and still
be able to switch structures successfully: “best of both worlds”
Individual differences impact team and individual
performance as well as ease of structural adaptation
52
Reward Structure Research

Review and discuss 4 studies focused on reward structures in
team-based work environments
Study
Form of Structure
may make different decisions on
altering their structure depending on the
type of feedback provided to them
Publication Status
Decision Aid Study
 Teams

Cooperation, Competition, and Team
Performance: Toward a Contingency Approach
 Reward

Cutthroat Cooperation: Asymmetrical
Adaptation of Team Reward Structures
 Reward
 Under
Role Negotiation in Self-Managed Teams: A
Conflict Trajectory Approach
 The
 Under
structures interact with
performance dimension to determine team
performance
structure changes may not be as
easy to make in one direction as they are
in the other
effectiveness of allowing team
members to negotiate their roles depends
on the team’s reward structure history
Data to be collected in the Fall, 2004
Published in the Academy of Management
Journal, 2003, 46, 5, 572-590
review at the Academy of Management
Journal
review at Administrative Science
Quarterly
53
Decision Aid Study
(Johnson et al., 2005)

Will teams alter their structure, roles, or process
given feedback on their structural fit?

Does the nature of the feedback tool or the degree
of centralization affect this decision?
54
Decision Aid Study
Method

Time 1
–
–
Divisional structure
Predictable environment

Feedback provided

Decision

Time 2
–
–
Structure of their choice
Predictable environment
55
Decision Aid Study
Method

Manipulated variables
–
Type of feedback
»
»
–
Centralization
»
»
–
Appointed leader
Self-managing
Decision options
»
»

Structural fit
Team member performance
Structure only
Structure, process, roles
Dependent variables
–
–
Structural decision
Team performance
56
Decision Aid Study
Structural Fit Feedback
Optimal Fit
41
44
47
50
53
56
59
62
65
57
Decision Aid Study
Team Member Performance Feedback
Optimal
Performance
18.5
22
25.5
29
32.5
36
39.5
43
46.5
50
53.5
57
60.5
64
67.5
71
74.5
78
81.5
58
Cooperative/Competitive Statics
(Beersma et al., 2003)

Reward structure/performance fit
–
Does the team’s reward structure impact differential
components of performance?
»
Cooperative vs. competitive rewards
 Personnel/reward
–
structure fit
Do certain types of people operate better under certain
reward structures?
Personality
» Ability
»
59
Cooperative/Competitive Statics
Results: External Fit
Standardized Performance
0.6
0.4
0.2
Speed
0
Accuracy
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Competition
Cooperation
Reward Structure
60
Cooperative/Competitive Statics
Results: External Fit
Standardized Performance
1.5
1
0.5
0
Speed - Best
Accuracy - Best
Speed - Worst
-0.5
Accuracy - Worst
-1
-1.5
Competition
Cooperation
Reward Structure
61
Cooperative/Competitive Statics
Results: Internal Fit
Standardized Performance
0.3
0.2
0.1
High Extraversion
0
Low Extraversion
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Competition
Cooperation
Rew ard Structure
62
Cooperative/Competitive Statics
Implications

External fit
–
–

Competitive reward structures: Enhance speed,
decrease accuracy
Cooperative reward structures: Enhance accuracy,
decrease speed
Internal fit
–
–
Extroverted and agreeable people: Best suited for
cooperative reward structures
Introverted and disagreeable people: Best suited for
competitive reward structures
63
Cooperative/Competitive Dynamics
(Johnson et al., 2004)

Do teams that move from cooperative to
competitive reward structures perform differently
than teams that move from competitive to
cooperative structures?

How does communication within the team affect
how well teams adapt under different reward
structures?
64
Cooperative/Competitive Dynamics
Theory

Two conditions caused by reward structure change
–
Friendly Competition: cooperative → competitive
Establish norms of cooperation and interdependence
» These norms are easily changed
» Able to engage in constructive competition with each other
»
(Tjosvold, Johnson, & Johnson, 2003)
–
Cutthroat Cooperation: competitive → cooperative
Establish norms of competition and independence
» These norms are not easily changed
» Not able to engage in constructive cooperation with each other
»
65
Cooperative/Competitive Dynamics
Results
Standardized Performance .
0.3
0.2
0.1
Time 1 Competitive
Time 2 Competitive
0
Friendly Competition
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Speed
Accuracy
66
Cooperative/Competitive Dynamics
Results
Standardized Performance .
0.3
0.2
0.1
Time 1 Cooperative
0
Time 2 Cooperative
Cutthroat Cooperation
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Speed
Accuracy
67
Cooperative/Competitive Dynamics
Implications

Similar to resource allocation structures, changing
reward structures appears to be a one-way street

Examples
–
–
–
Product development teams
Mergers and acquisitions
Department of Homeland Security
68
Cooperative/Competitive Dynamics
Future Research Directions

Overcoming Cutthroat Cooperation
–
–
–
–
Transitional reward structures
Hybrid reward structures
Separate teams (built for speed or accuracy)
Team composition
69
Supporting Cutthroat Cooperators
(Beersma et al., 2004)

Does allowing team members to negotiate their
roles enhance performance in cooperative reward
structures?

Do people with certain personality characteristics
negotiate roles more effectively?
70
Supporting Cutthroat Cooperators
Theory

Conflict trajectories
–
–
–
Positive and negative spirals
History effects
Team composition effects
 Coordination
–
–
efficiency
Information sharing
Workload sharing
71
Supporting Cutthroat Cooperators
Results
Accuracy of performance
1
0.5
Previous history of
cooperation
0
Previous history of
competition
-0.5
-1
No negotiation
Negotiation
72
Supporting Cutthroat Cooperators
Results
Accuracy of performance
1
0.5
Low team
agreeableness
0
High team
agreeableness
-0.5
-1
No negotiation
Negotiation
73
Supporting Cutthroat Cooperators
Implications

Team history
–
–
Previously competitive teams: Role negotiation deescalates conflict and enhances performance
Previously cooperative teams: Role negotiation
escalates conflict and hurts performance
 Team
–
–
composition
Agreeable teams benefited from role negotiation
Disagreeable teams were hurt by role negotiation
74